Marcel Wiget wrote:
> its a while since I added siproxd to m0n0wall 1.3 and wanted to get 
> some feedback about its use.  I initially added this feature to work 
> around the NAT problem I faced with our SIP based HD Video endpoints. 
> Since then I moved on to using a Session Border Controller which does 
> proper far end NAT support (as a proxy) plus many more things like 
> firewall and DOS protection.
>
> On the mailing list and forums I've seen several posts from people 
> reporting problems with siproxd but hardly any positive ones.
>
> I'm actually inclined to remove siproxd again from m0n0wall but am not 
> sure about the proper procedure. Would it make sense to ask the 
> mailing list for positive feedback on siproxd and then decide to 
> remove it?
>
> In case people are actually using it, I will look into bringing it up 
> to the latest rev.
>
> Marcel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>
Well, I have to test without proxy but I seem to need the proxy function 
in my situation where I an between 2 NAT devices. My ADSL modem/router 
NATs  from 192.168.1.x to my fixed external adres but since I cannot 
control this device, I have a Soekris with monowall 1.3b10 behind it 
which NATs from 192.168.10.x (and 20.x) to 192.166.1.1. Maybe  SIP is 
smart enough (with STUN) to corectly pass two NATting routers but Then I 
have to do more tests. 

Thanks
Egbert Jan (NL)